<!-- [if !supportLists]-->-<!--[endif]-->Tools for interpreting evidence of learning at the individual and group level and following up appropriately.

Leaders need to understand and act on assessment results in ways that improve teaching and learning and explain what’s happening to families and the broader community

grades are useful indicators of things that matter to students, teachers, parents, schools, and communities, and they are more accurate predictors of high-school completion and transition to college than standardized test scores. In addition, when grades are aggregated from individual pieces of student work to report card or course grades and GPA, their reliability increases.

Grades are multidimensional. They often include noncognitive information that teachers value, including effort, motivation, improvement, work habits, attention, engagement, participation, and behavior. That’s probably why grades are more accurate than test scores at predicting downstream success;

“Although measurement experts and professional developers may wish grades were unadulterated measures of what students have learned and are able to do,” say the authors, “strong evidence indicates that they are not.” Over the years, researchers have attributed variations in teachers’ grades to a number of factors: the rigor of the learning task; the actual quality of student work; the grading criteria; the grading scale; how strict or lenient the teacher was; and teacher error.

Transparency is important. Problems arise when teachers aren’t clear with students, parents, and colleagues about what goes into grades. When that happens, grades can convey inaccurate and misleading information.

Recent studies have shown that with clear rubrics and proper training, teachers can achieve an impressive level of inter-rater reliability.

What could explain why students who tried hard didn’t master the intended learning outcomes? There are several possibilities:

<!-- [if !supportLists]-->-<!--[endif]-->The teacher didn’t instruct students in appropriate ways, including using formative assessments to catch learning problems and help struggling students in real time.

“Employees in high-trust organizations are more productive, have more energy at work, collaborate better with their colleagues, and stay with their employers longer…” he says. “They also suffer less chronic stress and are happier with their lives, and these factors fuel stronger performance.” I

Recognizing excellence. This has the biggest impact on trust “when it occurs immediately after a goal has been met, when it comes from peers, and when it’s tangible, unexpected, personal, and public,”

Assigning challenging but achievable goals with a concrete end point. Leaders should also check in frequently to assess progress and adjust targets so they’re at the Goldilocks level of challenge – not too hard and not too easy.

Giving people discretion in how they do their work. “Being trusted to figure things out is a big motivator,”

Enabling job crafting. Motivation and trust are enhanced when people have some latitude to work on what interests and energizes them and choose their teammates.

Intentionally building relationships. Social ties at work improve performance, and these can be fostered by managers expressing interest and concern for team members and structuring lunches, staff parties, and fun off-site activities.

“if you’re not growing as a human being, your performance will suffer… Investing in the whole person has a powerful effect on engagement and retention.” Leaders need to have a growth mindset about developing talent, giving frequent feedback and discussing work-life balance, family, and career plans.

So joy on the job comes from doing purpose-driven work with a trusted team.”

“How much do you enjoy your job on a typical day?”

Too many people jump right into problem-solving before completely understanding what the issue is

But if the problem is reframed – Waiting for the elevator is annoying – different solutions are possible

Fresh eyes on the problem can be very helpful

Get people’s definition of the problem in writing.

Zoom out and ask if the problem statement lacks something important.

Step back and get people thinking metacognitively about what category of problem is being discussed: A personnel problem? An incentive problem? An expectations problem? An attitude problem? Some other category?

Look at situations where the problem didn’t occur and ask what was different.

“proponents’ deepest held worldviews were perceived to be threatened by skeptics, making facts the enemy to be slayed.” Their ability to hold to their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence is tied up with two psychological dynamics:

• Cognitive dissonance – This is the uncomfortable tension from holding two conflicting thoughts simultaneously, which proponents try to reduce by spin-doctoring facts to fit a preconceived notion.